It is that time of the political calendar
once again when politicians try to outbid each other in what is now
horribly dull and repetitive public discussion on migration. Whilst
voices from the business world have continually raised their concerns
about the adverse effects of such politics on the British economy, and
academics have demonstrated serious problems with the figures and
hyperbole casually thrown into discussions to incite hysteria over
migration, not many have asked what the Conservatives might be losing in
this process.

Attempts to appeal to cohorts concerned
enough about migration to consider voting for UKIP is not surprising.
Thus the appointment of Sir Andrew Green to the House of Lords and the
careless comments made by Michael Fallon did not really shock or awe any
of us. If anything, we have been underwhelmed. Yet, what has been
increasingly shocking is the continual short-sightedness of such moves,
and that the Conservatives still do not recognise what they are losing
in this process: the substantial number of votes that they could attract
from British citizens who are naturalised or with migrant origins.

For those whose understanding of
contemporary Britain and its myriad communities and citizenry is
outdated, the main constituency of the Conservative Party might still be
imagined to be the archetypal “English” voter. But the reality is that a
significant portion, if not the majority, of naturalised citizens and
their children have values much closer to traditional Conservative ones
than to those of any other party.

This is particularly so for those of African,
Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American and Eastern and Southern European
origin. Voters from these backgrounds tend to be much more socially,
religiously, culturally and politically conservative. The legends of
“benefit cheats and tourists” blind us from seeing that the vast
majority of Brits with migrant roots have had to work incredibly hard to
make their home in the UK, and to advance the wellbeing of their
family.

Therefore, they highly value hard work, and
appreciate the safety nets provided by the British welfare system –
since their experiences in their respective countries of origin make
them acutely aware of the UK system’s uniqueness in the world. And,
ironically, if you want to hear the harshest stands on migration, access
for new migrants to public funds, the importance of ensuring new
migrants respect and cherish the UK, and limiting of number of migrants
who can be naturalised as citizens, you need look no further than
British voters who were naturalised, or who were born to parents who
were migrants.

This means that Conservative Party should
appeal to a substantial percentage of such voters with its current
platform. The reality is that it is not able to. Many answers can be
given as to why this is the case. Clearly, the party still has a long
way to go in having voices from such backgrounds represented, and a lot
of homework to do in understanding these communities. Yet even if the
Conservative Party were to address these concerns, the language and tone
of migration debates would always be a hindrance for the large number
of voters who feel inclined towards traditional conservative values but
cannot bring themselves to vote for a Conservative candidate because the
rhetoric excludes them.

Often migration discussions lapse into
xenophobia, scapegoating and the demonisation of migrants, which in turn
makes Brits with migrant roots feel distanced and targeted. It is all
the more discouraging that migrant voices are completely absent from
discussions on migration, and that most discussions are held as if there
are no migrants in the room and somehow migrants don’t hear what is
being said about them.

The outcomes of this range from the UK
missing out on attracting global talent to British businesses, migrants
struggling to integrate and feeling alienated from the British society
(which creates fertile ground for radicalisation), and a significant
number of Brits feeling that they have no voice in the future of their
country. Beyond the domestic context, it is also costing the UK
diplomatic capital by underutilising the potential of its own diverse
population as natural bridges for global outreach for British
government, businesses and culture.

There is a way to discuss the migration issue
– which is not only a British challenge but a global one, with
identical arguments unfolding all across the world – without alienating
migrants and British citizens with migrant roots. If the Conservative
Party were to crack that code, it could gain more votes by attracting
these rather than by alienating them. This is a painful but necessary
process for the Conservatives. The Conservative Party needs to re-read
its voter base, take this challenge seriously, alter its public language
on migration and move beyond seeing potential candidates with migrant
roots as peripheral window-dressing rather than as integral parts of the
future of the party, just as they are integral parts of the future of
United Kingdom.